Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Gemma 4 26B A4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Object Detection, OCR, Open Prompt, and Classification.

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 26B A4B live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemma 4 26B A4B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, released for general availability on July 22, 2025, is the most cost-efficient model in the Gemini 2.5 family, designed for high-volume and latency-sensitive tasks. It is multimodal, supporting text, images, video, audio, and PDFs as inputs, with text as its primary output. The model handles up to 1 million input tokens and generates outputs up to 64K tokens, making it suitable for large-scale document or media processing at low cost. It is built on a Sparse Mixture-of-Experts architecture with native multimodal support, though exact parameter counts are undisclosed.

Flash-Lite offers the lowest usage cost among Gemini 2.5 models. It introduces developer controls for “thinking mode,” allowing fine-tuning of reasoning depth vs. efficiency. It also integrates native tools such as code execution, search grounding, and URL context. While strong on translation, classification, coding, and general multimodal reasoning, it lacks support for image or audio generation in its stable release and is less capable than Gemini 2.5 Flash or Pro on complex reasoning-heavy workflows.

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Gemma 4 26B A4B is the Mixture-of-Experts variant in Google's Gemma 4 family, with 25.2B total parameters but only 3.8B active per token. Built from the same Gemini 3 research as the 31B dense sibling and released as open weights under the Apache 2.0 license, it supports a 256K token context window with text and image input and configurable thinking mode. The "A4B" in the name refers to its approximately 4B active parameters. The MoE design makes it significantly faster at inference than the dense 31B, running nearly as fast as a 4B-parameter model while delivering roughly 97% of the dense model's quality.

For vision tasks, the 26B A4B shares the same multimodal capabilities as the 31B image understanding with variable aspect ratios and resolutions, and structured bounding box output for UI element detection. The tradeoff versus the 31B dense model is a small quality reduction in exchange for much faster inference and lower hardware requirements, fitting in 18GB of VRAM at 4-bit quantization. It ranked #6 among open models on the Arena AI text leaderboard at launch.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table

PropertyGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemma 4 26B A4B
OrganizationGoogleGoogle
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2025Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M256K
Parameters25.2B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$0.060
Output $/1M$0.400$0.330
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
ClassificationDemoDemo
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Multimodal Vision
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts
Score key:≥75%40–74%<40%
Overall Score
53.73%
68.66%
Avg Response Time7.19s30.23s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens294294
Median output tokens6214
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0000$0.0001
Defect Detection
66.7%(10/15)
80%(12/15)
Document Understanding
66.7%(6/9)
88.9%(8/9)
Object Counting
10%(1/10)
10%(1/10)
Object Understanding
71.4%(10/14)
85.7%(12/14)
Spatial Understanding
47.4%(9/19)
68.4%(13/19)

Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology